From rmg3@access5.digex.net Wed Jul 16 08:43:41 EDT 1997 Article: 36591 of sci.geo.meteorology Path: news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: rmg3@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology Subject: Global modelling Re: More on the Global Warming debate Date: 16 Jul 1997 08:41:07 -0400 Organization: Under construction Lines: 95 Message-ID: <5qifh3$hdt@access5.digex.net> References: <5p9opn$bou@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <Pine.SOL.3.90.970714134134.19720A-100000@Sleet> <uxuoh84fd5j.fsf@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu> <Pine.SOL.3.90.970715164036.25916F-100000@Sleet> NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net Xref: news2.digex.net sci.geo.meteorology:36591 In article <Pine.SOL.3.90.970715164036.25916F-100000@Sleet>, Owen Hertzman <hertzman@Atm.Dal.Ca> wrote: > >Gary's point about why the skeptics don't build their own models and try >out their ideas is good in theory, but quite impractical in real life. ? >The time and money required to build such a model is not trivial and >requires institutional committment. In Canada there's room for one of >these; in the US perhaps there are 4 or 5. I'm not absolutely certain about Canada, but in the US there are at least: GFDL NCAR-CCM NCAR-Genesis NCEP UCLA LLNL NASA-GISS NASA-GLA U. IL U. Oregon off the top of my head. The UCLA and U.IL models (at least) were, in fact, largely the productions of individuals. A better figure and information on the distribution on the models can be obtained by going to the AMIP (atmospheric model intercomparison project) home page at LLNL. There are 63 participating models worldwide, (at my last count, which was some time ago) and I'm fairly confident that you'll find more than 1 from Canada and certain that there are more than 5 from the US. The CCC model isn't the only one in Canada (UQAM and/or McGill have at the very least been experimenting with one as part of the Quebec supercomputing project). >Because of the way funding >works, a person or persons who set out to prove a null result over a >decade have a very low probablility of being funded either by NSF or >NSERC (the Canadian version). The Western Fuels Association, among others, seems happy to underwrite non-research efforts (Patrick Michaels magazine, for instance). Why can't they direct their money to model development? Surely constructing a model that reproduces the present climate (as well as the other models) and shows no warming under doubled CO2 would be absolutely the best argument they could have. Certainly it would be better than the articles in Michaels' magazine sniping at how the models that other people write aren't perfect. In any case, funding and large in-house staffs aren't required, particularly if the greenhouse warming is entirely a figment of political and funding desires of the modellers. If it is a figment (let's be honest, what is being alleged is large-scale conspiracy and fraud) then it should be quite simple to develop a model that shows that. Even without that (i.e., merely saying that the people in the field have deluded themselves), rather impressive codes can be developed by unfunded individuals and groups working on the subject for sheer love of it. I run Linux at work, which was funded by nobody, developed in the kernel by an individual, and which works extremely well. Climate models, considered as computer codes, are vastly simpler than a Linux distribution. It's even easier than that anyhow. Certain parts of the GCM code are pretty hard to have tuned to a climate response (say, the dynamics and advection). These parts you can simply snarf off the net. (Reminder to the fraud people: at least one, and I believe more, of the GCM's is available on the net. You are free to go get a copy of the code yourself and run it, analyze it, and name the lines that have been tampered with to force an improper response to CO2.) The only parts you then need to develop are the ones that you think have been done improperly. >If a proposal was received tomorrow to build another GCM emphasizing >physics and hydrology more than the current models, it would require >Manhattan Project like commitments of money and people. These are just >not available (except to the movie makers). Manhattan Project was billions of dollars. Any of the GCM groups would boggle at that kind of budget. A million a year would set up a group fairly nicely (that including salary for a staff). >Owen Hertzman E-mail: Owen.Hertzman@Dal.Ca >Dept. of Oceanography Phone: (902) 494-3683 >Dalhousie University FAX: (902) 494-2885 >Halifax, NS CANADA, B3H 4J1 You realize that there are even more than 5 ocean GCM's in the US? -- MOM, POM, NCAR, GISS, NASA-GSFC, SPEM, another couple I know of in development, ... Again, this includes models which are largely the production of single individuals. In making the lists above, I have undoubtedly left off several models, including (I'm afraid) models that friends work on. If I left you off, I'm sorry. It was solely a matter of who came to my fingers first as I was typing 60 wpm, and not a matter of the above being those I consider the best. (The ones above are good, don't get that wrong either.) -- Robert Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences